Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Integral Ecology and Spiritual Dialogues

Written By

José Ivo Follmann

Submitted: 04 April 2022 Reviewed: 02 May 2022 Published: 20 June 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.105126

From the Edited Volume

Ecotheology - Sustainability and Religions of the World

Edited by Levente Hufnagel

Chapter metrics overview

116 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The essay has as its starting point, a brief awareness of the accelerated degradation and depletion of Planet Earth and the incompetent or insensitive economies toward the scandalous increase of social inequalities and situations of human waste in the world. Next, come some core points of the Church’s Social Teaching under Pope Francis, highlighting integral ecology and dialogue, as well as some relevant aspects in the debate of global ethical standards and new perceptions of the paths of spirituality. With this broad framework, the central focus of the text synthesizes a proposal for a concept of promoting justice considered coherent and operative within this context, emphasizing the relevance of spiritual dialogues as a transforming practice within the complexity that questions and challenges us. Even without directly addressing the concept of sustainability, by focusing on integral ecology and spiritual dialogues, the essay’s main horizon is to suggest paths to sustainable societies.

Keywords

  • integral ecology
  • spiritual dialogues
  • Pope Francis
  • socio environmental justice

1. Introduction

The essay was written at a time of tremendous acceleration in history, where, after a syndemic pandemic,1 we experienced the impactful images of war.2 Placed at the center of a dramatic design of humanity and the Planet Earth, breathing the uncertainty of its survival, we join our voice to a multitude of voices that have swelled more and more, over the last decades, in a pathetic clamor dissolving between despair and hope.

It is a painful epochal change that is underway. It is a living process that has marked our history over the last few decades. Many thinkers and humanists followed one another in the search for the elucidation of the main causes and, also, the possible ways of overcoming them. At the same time, we also witness important advances in knowledge and design of paths to sustainability, amid the manifestations of chaos and strong signs of unsustainability, which multiply in a dizzying way.

Some voices fill us with faith in life and are of great encouragement. Among them, we highlight the voice and witness of the Holy Father Francis, who has vigorously resumed dialogue in the construction of a horizon of the future, supported by integral ecology and the Christian theology of reconciliation. The Church’s Social Teaching and the effort of dialogue are outstanding under the leadership of this Pope.

Over the last few decades, the search for global ethical standards has also intensified, increasingly becoming a fundamental requirement. In this sense, the efforts made by the German theologian Hans Küng [2, 3] are well known. From the same perspective, the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff [4, 5, 6], in his very perceptive reading of the world, brings us some important clues to a necessary spirituality in today’s times.

The essay reports also, in summary, a collective effort, which I had the opportunity to coordinate in the Jesuit Province of Brazil, proposing an operational concept of promoting socio-environmental justice in coherence with the dreamed future horizon. The idea of spiritual dialogues is seen as a base amalgamation in this operational conception. Thus, this idea ends the essay not as a conclusion but as an invitation to deepen the reflection or fruitful signaling of a future of overcoming. This ending also includes some mobilizing questions within the present historical moment, whose dramatic design is outlined at the beginning.

This is the path taken in the essay that unfolds in six moments or subtitles.

Advertisement

2. A dramatic design

What sense do absurd military budgets have in our time? What is the meaning of human life if we are not able to react (in the face of all this) and leave prehistory? Because I believe that, as long as war is our way of overcoming our conflicts, resolving our conflicts, we will continue in prehistory … How long? This is a challenge for young people from now on, to fight for a better world, and we realize the collective responsibility we have as a society. Is it impossible to dream? Is it not possible that, in today’s world, the utopia that man can improve himself and society can be affirmed? It’s a little question that I leave in the air. (José Mujica – Ex-President of Uruguay).3

We live in times of civilizational degradation in human society. This reality is mirrored in different ways in most countries. The most correct, perhaps, is to say: We live in a planetary civilizational crisis! Assertions about this phenomenon, which marks our times with sick humanity on an equally sick planet, are nothing new. There are also many studies and manifestations of all kinds that focus on the theme of increasing and explicit symptoms of the seriousness of this global disease. Many elements come together for the analysis of this diagnosis.

The main symptoms are: Humanity has lost its “common human sense,” involved in superficialities, and with its fundamental values shaken. Among these values are life itself and dignity. The syndrome of arrogant and self-sufficient prepotency of some small groups is wide open to everyone’s eyes, hiding under false facades. There are clear signs of neglect which, in many political, economic, and social situations, is not only misguided but blatantly irresponsible, resulting in the ignominious accumulation of concentration of wealth and the exclusion and death of the most suffering people, who are poor, discarded from the world, and vulnerable in their dignity.4 In many places, too, manifestations of racism, xenophobia, and various discriminatory prejudices have become frightening. The accelerated process of environmental degradation and the increase in inequalities and situations of exclusion are clear signs that sustainability, despite all the technological advances we have experienced, is always more fragile and shaken.

Humanity suffers, above all, from a glaring disregard for the very future of life, in every sense, concerning “Mother Earth” and the “Common Home.” In the context of countries like Brazil, it is degradation, verging on depravity, that threatens the civilizational achievements of humanity, generally carried out with struggle and blood.5

The Brazilian Commission for Justice and Peace—CBJP, on February 21, 2022, in its periodic analysis of the conjuncture,6 when referring to the geopolitics of the moment, began with a reflection on Pope Francis’s expression, who spoke of the “world war in parts”:

Still in 2014, eighteen months into his pontificate, Pope Francis, after visiting a military cemetery, warned that “the world is experiencing the Third World War in parts,” whose most latent face is “crimes, massacres, and destruction.” What appeared to be a rhetorical exaggeration, embraced under the emotion of witnessing to those who had died in combat, demonstrated a remarkable analytical lucidity.7

It is an expression associated with the idea of “hybrid warfare.”8 It is a war where more than missiles, tanks, ships, or planes,9 most crimes happen through “cyber bombings,” with the practice of spreading cyber infections, stealing information, and fraud in operating systems. The truculent dissemination of partial versions full of falsehoods is associated with economic sanctions that suffocate national and international production and trade. “Hybrid warfare” is a resource that has strengthened and expanded with the advent of weapons of mass destruction.

The tendency is that weakly or moderately constituted national states, poor, and/or divided by religion, ethnicity, and internal political disputes are victims of global rivalries on a larger scheme. The divisions will get decisively exploited by the powers. Consequently, there is a growing trend of fierce political disputes, separatist demonstrations, religious and ethnic massacres on the periphery of the world, especially where resources and trade are abundant [8].

If we move to another scenario, in which the same actors on the agenda are also present; in another focus of reality, we can echo a phrase that most must have heard, several times, in early November 2021: “The Earth is talking to us, and it’s saying we don’t have time anymore.” These are the words of the young indigenous Txai Suruí, a Brazilian representative, in the opening speeches of the Climate Summit (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland (October 31—November 12, 2021). The Earth wants to talk to all the inhabitants who live on it.

The whole point is that our “Common Home” [9]10 is falling apart, too neglected and disordered to provide sustainability and good living conditions for the entire “big family” that lives in it. It becomes very serious because the main groups, or large oligarchies and corporations of power, become ever more insatiable and mysteriously untouchable within this “great family,” to the detriment of most of humanity and specifically of peoples who have already been accumulating historical suffering.

Often, when talking about socio-environmental problems, the bias immediately leads us to the issues of dispute for natural assets, far from the urban context. However, as serious (or more serious) than these conflicts are those generated in the daily life of the socio-environmental conflict lived in the urban context, more directly evidenced, or witnessed in the countless slums and the underworld of the discarded. For example, it rarely happens in academies to present the large concentration of black population in Brazilian favelas as an expression of one of the biggest socio-environmental problems, which cuts the country from north to south. It is a living expression of environmental racism, whose concept, incidentally, is at the very origin of the concept of environmental justice or environmental injustice, as it is widely known from the contributions of Robert D. Bullard [10] and others. In these subhuman and violent contexts, the “world war in parts” is also taking lives, in an endless process. Of course, the socio-environmental problems of large urban centers should be seen on a broader horizon. We must be aware, for example, above all, of the stark fact of the growing demands of consumption of goods, which large urban concentrations, by their own characteristics, demand.

Pay attention! I am not trying to divert attention from the grave attacks on the environment that occur, for example, in the Amazon context or relation to biomes in general, resulting from criminal extractivism. I reinforce the awareness regarding the deleterious and devastating force for Planet Earth and humanity that is present in the growing and scandalous aggressions regarding the reserve of life on the planet that is the Amazon biome and other similar biomes in the world. I just want to draw attention to the extent of the socio-environmental injustice that surrounds us, and that is concentrated, above all, in large urban centers, which are, on the one hand, spaces for the consumption of goods in a disorderly and almost “savage” way, and, on the other hand, machines of concentrated pollution and agglomerations of very aggressive housing degradation.

I only want to draw attention to the extent of the socio-environmental injustice that surrounds us, and that is concentrated, above all, in large urban centers, which are at the same time machines of concentrated pollution and clusters of very aggressive housing degradation.

Perhaps it should be said that at the heart of this problem is humanity itself as such, which is muffled, repressed, and forgotten. In other words: The human being seems to have been, in different ways, deviated from its own humanity. I have heard the statement several times: Humanity has lost its soul! Perhaps, putting ourselves in Leonardo Boff’s perspective [6], we can say that human beings are neglecting their “dimension of depth.” ([5], p. 162–164)

Advertisement

3. The human drama in the mirror of the paths of knowledge

Today, it is common to hear that the way in which the development processes are more usually conceived is in evident contradiction with the perception, which is always more universal and lucid regarding the indissoluble relationship between the so-called “environmental problem” and the “human and social problem.” A development based on the exploitation of nature and inconsequential consumption, for a long time, has been giving signs of risk and activated the red light of warning for humanity and the entire biosphere and its multiple ecosystems.

We also know that this alert relates to a broader issue involving the knowledge process per se. There are many voices that have already been raised, outside and inside the scientific environment, giving strength and vigor to the alert in question. It is an alert not only for specialists and scholars but, above all, for humanity itself, that is, for human wisdom and prudence.

One of the main causes of socio-environmental problems is the historical process that cuts and segments the sciences, producing knowledge in pieces and fragmented. Nature and society have been studied in parts according to the lens of different disciplines. With the division of disciplines, science has not been successful in understanding the whole, in its complexity. New knowledge has been sought capable of comprehending the problem in its complexity and its dynamic and relational unity. There is a need for a strategy so that long-term planning can be performed, integrating the various historical, economic, social, political, ecological, and cultural processes.

It is known that the chemical scientist Ilya Prigogine, already in the 1970s, was inviting us to the need and urgency of establishing a “new alliance.” Having received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977, this scientist, in one of his most influential works, co-authored with Isabelle Stengers, “The New Alliance” [11], appeals to the urgent need for a “re-enchantment of the world.” According to the authors: “The time has come for new alliances, which have always been established and for a long time ignored, between the history of men, their societies, their knowledge, and the exploring adventure of nature.” ([11], p. 226).

It is never enough to repeat, to us, that the advances in knowledge and the search for correct approaches to overcome the limitations of modern science itself have been great. There were multiple paths. At the level of Environmental Sciences, we highlight the view from the perspective of environmental racism and environmental justice or injustice, so widely worked today by several authors since the 1980s and 1990s (especially in the United States) to the present day, as we have already mentioned when mentioning Robert Bullard [10]. In Brazil we could mention for this essay, the work of Henri Acselrad, Cecília Mello and Gustavo Bezerra [12] and works such as those of Leonardo Boff [6], Elimar Nascimento [13], Daniela dos Santos Almeida, Thula Pires and Virgínia Totti [14], and Teresinha Gonçalves [15].

It is considered paradigmatic the great lucidity of the contributions of Enrique Leff [16], who brings a strong differential contribution to Environmental Sciences by underlining that, from the interests of each scientific discipline, also the knowledge of the peasant, the indigenous, and the Afro-descendant population must be considered. Also relevant are the contributions of Joan Alier [17], with the concept of the “ecologism of the poor.” In the same way, the contributions of the sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos [18, 19] should be highlighted, with the conception of the “ecology of knowledge” in overcoming the abyssal line between modern reason and traditional knowledge and others cultivated outside the reach of the academy. We should assuredly mention Edgar Morin [20, 21], with his rich elaborations on the horizon of complexity theory. In the same sense, dialogue with the thought of David Harvey [22], so lucidly explained in “Spaces of Hope” is indispensable.

An important production regarding the relationship between production, circulation, and consumption, focusing on the protection of the environment and the socio-environmental impact of human actions is organized by Silvia Aparecida G. Ortigoza and Ana Tereza C. Cortez [23]. This is certainly a fundamental path when we talk about sustainability. As already indicated above, urban spaces are characterized, in large part, by concentrated consumption and waste along with a large concentration of pollution, added to the juxtaposition between ostentatious luxury and housing degradation.

Another path of fundamental importance could be identified through reflections and deepening by the bias of “ecosophy” and/or “deep ecology” [4, 5, 6, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29] with approaches broadly focused on a conception of sacred reverence for everything that surrounds us, and which is based on or refers with respect to ancient wisdom and religious traditions.11

According to Basarab Nicolescu [33], renowned physical scientist and theorist of the transdisciplinary proposal, it is knowledge produced with attention to the “included third.” This included the third party is extra-academic and does not use disciplinary language and scientific jargon. The contributions of this author, from the perspective of transdisciplinarity, must be considered in the analysis and the search for solutions to the dramas experienced by humanity.

After this small and representative authorial cast, we can infer that, with the appearance or evidence of the various levels of reality in the studies of natural systems, the complexity presents itself, provoking a new logic of seeing the environmental problem, not reduced to the environmental one, but socio-environmental, involving the different dimensions of human coexistence. Or, more radically, it is about meeting the true meaning of an ecosystem. For, strictly speaking, every ecosystem – a favela, a dam-building enterprise, an agropastoral production enterprise, an indigenous village, a university campus, etc. – is complexly constituted of all spheres of human and natural relationships. Strictly speaking, it is a question of guiding the idea of sustainable ecosystems.

Advertisement

4. Pope Francis and his social teaching: integral ecology and dialogues

God of love […] Enlighten those who possess power and money, that they may avoid the sin of indifference, that they may love the common good, advance the weak, and care for this world in which we live. (LS, 246).

I want to start this item by evoking this passage from the Christian Prayer with Creation, with which the Holy Father Francis closes the text of Laudato Si′ [9]. It is a controversial phrase that demonstrates a deep belief in the possibility of conversion. As we will see in the sequence of this reflection, spiritual dialogues can perhaps be one of the most fruitful paths to this conversion.

In my perception and of many others, the person who is better able to mobilize world opinion concerning this whole issue at hand is, without a doubt, Pope Francis. I present here a key to reading, on which I rely, and is the same key to reading cultivated today in the Social Teaching of the Church12 itself. I do so, relying on the two most recent social encyclical letters: Laudato Si′ [9] and Fratelli Tutti [34].

In Laudato Si′, referring to an “integral ecology, one which clearly respects its human and social dimensions” (LS, 137), Pope Francis is accurate and precise in his assertion:

We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature. (LS, 139).

As I have already pointed out, Holy Father Francis obviously is not a pioneer in this assertion. However, the novelty is in the way he engages today in mobilizing human minds and hearts about this crisis of humanity, which is a unique crisis, underlying and permeating the social and environmental crisis. Its origin is the very way in which human beings have been led to use and abuse their fellow human beings and the gifts of creation, or the riches of the Earth.

In 2020, with the encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti (FT), Pope Francis sought to address the human and social dimensions as if drawing a new chapter of the previous encyclical. In presenting this new encyclical letter, the Pope expressed himself by saying that: “Human fraternity and care of creation form the sole way toward integral development and peace, already indicated by the Popes Saints John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II” [35]. It is important to note that the Pope does not say “two ways,” but “the sole way.” There, behind this care with the language, resides undoubtedly, a very clear message regarding the proposition already explained in the LS, which points to the need for an integral ecology. It seems that the Pope is signaling that the FT content must be deepened in an integrated way with the content of the LS. The two encyclical letters, as a whole, add within our reading and perception, a great current synthesis of the Social Teaching of the Church.

According to Pope Francis, “An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break with the logic of violence, exploitation, and selfishness” (LS, 230). In a previous document, in the Apostolic Orientation Evangelii Gaudium ([36], EG), Holy Father Francis had already strongly signaled the importance of sobriety and freedom in the use of things, with care for everything and everyone (EG, 223 and 229).

Long before the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti was made public, the Brazilian theologian Elio Gasda [37], when reflecting on the social texts of the Pope, already advanced an in-depth and coherent reading of what would be expressed in the new Encyclical two years later. He then expressed:

For a change in mentality and lifestyles, it is necessary to form a conscience to give importance to the integral meaning of the Common Home. […] The moment urgently needs alternative proposals. Capitalism presents serious challenges to the principles of social justice, the common good, and human dignity. Reality demands a new look that integrates the advances of the economy with critical dialogue and the new actors involved in alternative practices. ([37], p. 46–47).

Within this line of reasoning, the author makes relevant references to practices, which we can call testimonials within history, pointing out the path of “well-living” that characterizes the culture of many peoples, especially Latin Americans. He recalls a small excerpt from Pope Francis’s speech at the Meeting with the People of the Amazon in Puerto Maldonado, January 15–22, 2018:

For some, you are considered an obstacle or a hindrance. In fact, you, with your lives, are a cry to the conscience of a lifestyle that cannot measure its own costs. (Apud [37], p.57).

Pope Francis highlights, above all, the importance of dialogue today. In Fratelli Tutti, he devotes an entire chapter (chap. VI) to the theme of “dialogue and social friendship.” This chapter begins with a list of some tremendously expressive verbs:

Approaching, speaking, listening, looking at, coming to know and understand one another, and to find common ground: all these things are summed up in the one word “dialogue” (FT, 198).

According to the pontiff, persevering and courageous dialogue will help the world to live better. When we talk about the need for spiritual dialogues, we focus on the urgency of this ongoing educational exercise in our lives and societies, in the search for a culture of sustainability.

Advertisement

5. In search of global ethical standards and a new spirituality

1. No peace among the nations, without peace among religions. 2. No peace among religions, without dialogue among religions. 3. No dialogue among religions, without global ethical standards. 4. No survival of our Globe in peace and justice, without a new paradigm of international relations based on global ethical standards. (HANS KÜNG).

The German theologian Hans Küng [2, 3] cultivated, over the last thirty years of his life, these four principles as four “mantras” of his deepest convictions. According to this thinker, a Global Ethics Project requires the alliance of believers (followers of religions) and non-believers (followers of other orientations) for a new common basic ethos. There is a basic rule of humanity which is human dignity, that is, “every person must be treated humanely.” And there is also the so-called golden law, present in many sacred texts: “What you do not want to be done to you, do not do to anyone else.” (See [3], p. 12).

The author centrally commented on the great significance represented by the Declaration on the World Ethos, formulated by the Parliament of Cosmic Religions, in 1993, in Chicago. The declaration highlights some common ethical principles and essential guidelines, such as the obligation for a culture of non-violence and respect for life; the obligation of a culture of solidarity and a just economic order; the obligation for a culture of tolerance and a life of authenticity; and, finally, the obligation for a culture of equal rights and the partnership of men and women.

According to Hans Küng,

This clarification should be studied and discussed intensively in all our groups, parishes, in religious and ethical teaching: it is written in the language of our time, it is generic, but not abstract; it is concrete, but not casuistic; it is critical and simultaneously hopeful” ([3], p. 13).

In this sense, it is very opportune, from a more spiritual perspective, to also make here, together with Hans Küng, a particular reference to the Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, who leads us freely along paths of thought where new ethical demands fertilize new proposals for spirituality.

Indeed, the new requirements call for a spirituality that radically changes us in our practices. May it make us return to the true path of justice. Leonardo Boff, in “Reflections of an old theologian and thinker” [4], points out that:

The singularity of our time lies in the fact that spirituality has been discovered as a dimension of the depths of the human being, as the necessary moment for the full blossoming of our individuation, and as a space of peace amid social and existential conflicts and desolations ([4], p. 166).

Spirituality generates inner change. The author reminds us of a radical thought of the great Eastern religious leader Dalai Lama: “Spirituality is that which produces a change within us! (If it doesn’t produce a transformation in you, it’s not spirituality!).” The author comments on this sentence, stating that there are changes and changes. The human being is a being of changes because he is never ready. However, there are “changes that do not transform its basic structure,” and there are changes which are true transformations “capable of giving new meaning to life or opening new fields of experience and depth, toward the very heart and the Mystery of everything. It is not uncommon in the realm of religion that such changes occur. But not always.” ([4], p.165–166).

This manifestation of the value of spirituality, as a regenerating force, is supported by the author’s own cry, which tells us: “let us create judgment and learn to be wise and to prolong the human project, purified by the great crisis that will surely crush us.” ([4], p. 158). He adds:

The Judeo-Christian scriptures encourage us: “Choose life, and you will live.” (Dt 30:28), and God presented Himself “as the passionate lover of life” (Wis 11:24). Let us move quickly, for we do not have much time to lose. ([4], p. 159).

It is a little cry added to infinite other cries that rise in every corner of the Earth, chorusing the great and unfathomable mystery of love, expressed within the Christian tradition, in the “regenerating cry” of Jesus Christ. However, neither Christianity nor any other religion has a monopoly on spiritualities. And not even religions in their total sum can encompass the existing expressions of spirituality.

There are, however, some proposals that offer a horizon of reference that facilitates dialogue with the present moment. Specifically within the traditions of spirituality, cultivated in Catholicism, I want to highlight a brief consideration made by the Brazilian Jesuit Lúcio Flávio Cirne [38] when he refers to two important paradigmatic paths in the Christian tradition: the spiritual heritage of Francis of Assisi, known above all for the famous “Canticle of Creatures,” which expresses praise to the Highest God, humanity that becomes the sister of creatures and the respect and admiration for the entire created world; and the legacy of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola, in which the Principle and Foundation itself presents a way of life in which God, human beings and the environment (the world) are intimately interrelated; finding God in all things and all things in God is the great horizon in the “prayer to reach love” of the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises (See [38], pp. 191–197).

Perhaps we can describe it as an imperative that, in terms of spirituality, what is expected of humanity, that is, of us, today, is the disposition of our hearts to seek the best paths for the construction of life-generating societies; to rebuild ourselves in our ability to recognize the other in their dignity; to be indignant in the face of scandalous and unacceptable inequalities, and the inhuman situation experienced by many brothers and sisters; to take care of life and the gifts of creation, impelled by the love for every life that will pulsate on this Planet Earth, in the future. It is the willingness to be, in everyday life, cultivators of socio-environmental justice. These are proposals that cut across all religious traditions, in one way or another, and overflow them in many ways. They are propositions that have secure anchors in Franciscan spirituality and Ignatian spirituality, seen in an integrated way. The testimony of Holy Father Francis demonstrates this.

Advertisement

6. The promotion of justice: an operational essay

Since 2015, the Social and Environmental Justice Network of the Jesuits of Brazil has been nurturing a concept of socio-environmental justice developed within the horizon of integral ecology and theology of reconciliation, seeking a sufficiently didactic and comprehensive format that could be of easy operability in transforming practice. It intends to cover basically all dimensions of social life, involving personal and interpersonal relationships, relations with society and in society, and relationships with natural assets and the environment.

To shed new light on the present essay that puts “integral ecology and spiritual dialogues” on the agenda, I believe it may be useful to present a brief synthesis of the core of the definition of this operational concept used, as expressed in the “Marco de Promoção da Justiça Socioambiental.”

The concept of socio-environmental justice13 is related to the broad concept of integral ecology and is consistent with the theology of reconciliation. It is defined operationally by an internal transversal dynamic, showing three dimensions or thematic vectors in the coexistence within our great “Common Home” and three levels or strategic spaces of incidence.

The three dimensions of socio-environmental justice, that is, emphases or thematic vectors, which help to delimit specific coordinates inherent to socio-environmental justice practices, are 1. Recognition of the dignity of all human beings within the different ethnic-racial roots, religious beliefs, different generations, gender, worldviews, and options, always looking for ways to establish the dialogue, the value of plurality, the reception of others, of the different—for example, migrants and refugees—and the care of the vulnerable in their dignity; 2. Solidarity with the world’s poor and discarded and overcoming social inequalities, promoting universal access to basic rights to work, social assistance, social security, health, housing, education, food, and national identity. Surveillance and advocacy for public policies, political life, and institutional transparency. 3. Caring for the gifts of creation: Conservation, preservation, and proper use of natural gifts, to care for healthy ecosystems and life for the future of Planet Earth and its inhabitants, and special attention to our way of being, living, and working, and the diversity of life in different environmental biomes.

The three levels of incidence, that is, the different strategic spaces in their exercise, considering the complex relationship between concrete and abstract, empiricism and theory, or the narrowest and the broadest, in each of the dimensions or thematic vectors of socio-environmental justice, are 1. The level of knowledge production, through the recognition of the different ways of knowing and perceiving life and things, far beyond the mere knowledge disciplined by the academic world, highlighting the search for overcoming the abyssal line that separates, on the one hand, academically valued knowledge, and, on the other hand, knowledge excluded from the rational-scientific world. We highlight, on one side, the appreciation of diversity in the perception of reality and, on the other side, the perverse process of negationism and superficialities of all kinds dominating today’s culture. 2. The level of decision-making in society, with an attitude of open and non-excluding cultivation of knowledge, respecting the place of speech of everyone, and imprinting increasingly democratic practices is, without a doubt, a fundamental contribution to higher success in management, accounting for an authentic and broad culture of participation and recognition of the dignity of the subjects involved in decisions, politics, economy, and social, cultural, and institutional organization. It is fundamental when disbelief in politics and institutions is growing. 3. The level of everyday practices is the real ground of care within personal and collective practices in everyday life. It is the field of daily life, of day-by-day simplicity, of care, and justice in life as it happens; the space and time of deep sedimentation of the care for our Common Home, in the living, witnessing the recognition of the other within their cultural, religious (and other) specificities, however different they may be if compared to ours. It is the level of wisdom nurturing and spiritual deepening.

In other words, in our search to promote socio-environmental justice (social and environmental justice) through the care of the radical recognition of human dignity, care for the commitment to combating social inequalities, and care for the gifts of creation, we seek to be attentive to the most appropriate spaces for the exercise of incidence or transformative practice, which may be the level or place of ideas and knowledge, the level of participation and direct influence with the different forces concerning society, and/or the particular level of personal witness and community within the simplicity of our daily lives. It is never enough to repeat: All of this will find more connectivity and more “links” as we evolve in our spiritual dialogues.

Obstacles, however, are always alive and glaring. Perhaps one of the most serious obstacles is the tremendous mismatch (sometimes abysmal distance) between theory and practice in academia; between the promises of political discourse and the search for real solutions to problems; between the often calculating or alienated/alienating formulation of religions and religiosities and the effective spiritual experience in caring for life and dignity in everyday life; between immediate and superficial reactions and reactions thought out and discerned in knowledge. It is necessary that the curtains of hypocrisy, superficiality, reductive formatting, and corruption—in short, alienation—be broken in all spheres.

There is nothing better than spiritual dialogues to facilitate these ruptures and purify our practice of justice (socio-environmental justice) at all levels and dimensions. If we draw our attention to the original questions in the sacred text of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions, we can summarize them in the following basic questions: “Where are you”? This is how God questioned Adam. (Gen 3,9).14“Where is your brother”? This is how God challenged Cain. (Gen 4,9). “How is the creation”? This is how God challenged humanity, not letting it forget its mandate to take care of everything. (Gen. 1, 26–31; 2, 15).15 The questions are reproduced in the Christian Bible. Their meaning also resonates in the sacred texts of other traditions. God challenges humanity, which hides from itself by cowering in denialism. God challenges humanity throughout history and through all religions. These are questions that have resonated in the universe since the dawn of humanity. These are questions that humanity asks itself. Adam hid himself. Cain killed Abel. Humanity has forgotten.

Advertisement

7. Spiritual dialogues as a fruitful signaling—conclusive considerations

To start this final item, I seek support in a tremendously concise and consistent synthesis made by Leonardo Boff [5] when talking about the relationship between us, human beings, and sustainability. According to this theologian:

The individual human being is a single and complex reality, structured in three dimensions that intertwine and always have the same and unique individual subject as a bearer. He presents himself with an exteriority – man/body, an interiority – man/psyche, and a depth – man/spirit. […] ([5], p. 158).

In addition to the bodily exteriority and psychic interiority, and everything that sustainability implies in these dimensions, the author also invites us to reflect on the sustainability of the man/spirit, that is, on the importance of cultivating the space of the profound in us. If he points to the importance of moments “for recollection to listen to one’s own heart and raise oneself to the heart of God” ([5], p.163), it is, however, important, within the proposal of our text, to highlight the dialogic aspect. According to the author himself, “the spirit means the capacity for relationship and connection that all beings entertain with each other, generating information and constituting the network of energies that sustain the entire universe” ([5], 162). When I speak of the importance and urgency of spiritual dialogues, I rely on this conclusion expressed here, too.

In humanity that is succumbing to the virus of selfishness, indifference, and the loss of the profound meaning of its own existence and the meaning of its being in the world, perhaps one of the most radical appeals or imperatives is to stimulate and provoke, in everything, the dimension of dialogue, in what is the deepest of existence, that is, the dimension of depth. Dialogue with God must be exercised in communication with others and with the goods of creation, and dialogue with others and with the goods of creation makes the dialogue with God gain in-depth and consistency. It will allow us to grow in our citizen commitment and in the exercise of promoting justice. Citizenship commitment will only be able to grow in someone, to the extent that one is effectively willing to break the shell of egocentrism, immediate interests, and personal accumulation. The greater the multiplication and diversification of dialogues, spanning different dimensions of human coexistence and different levels of incidence, the more chances will be to grow in citizen commitment and the feeling of co-responsibility for one’s own life, for others, for all humanity, and all the beings on the planet.

I have a great expectation that the pandemic, which in countries like Brazil manifested itself with true “syndemics” [1], has made us more vigilant and careful. I have great expectation that the horrors of the “world war in parts,” so publicized in the case of the Russian occupation of Ukraine but which have been torturing various territories and peoples without a reasonable explanation for humanity, will challenge us and bring renewed lessons. May we always be attentive to promoting spaces for spiritual dialogue in our midst, allowing ourselves to be questioned and permanently questioning our lives, in all dimensions and levels, for the great question of nurturing human dignity and the value of life, in all their expressions.

Both the reality of the pandemic (syndemics) and the reality of wars, in addition to putting us face to face with limitations, degeneration, and human coarsening, have also provided us with important testimonies of human greatness and overcoming, vividly demonstrated by the high spirit of solidarity manifested on all fronts along with a substantial human outcry of indignation and protest against inhumanities. Multiple cases of true heroism have been witnessed in defense of the profound meaning of humanity. Thus, recent history brings us a new imperative: It is necessary that all this good energy, full of hope, be widely nurtured, with great dedication and care, so that it can grow ever more vigorously and never diminish and succumb to the perversity of the reigning cultures that are reductive and generative of human emptiness.

I want to emphasize that spiritual dialogues occur whenever we allow ourselves to be questioned by the soul of humanity, whenever the academy allows itself to be questioned by the soul of humanity, whenever politics allows itself to be questioned by the soul of humanity, whenever religion allows itself to be questioned by the soul of humanity.

Whenever we know how to establish relationships mediated by the profound and spiritual dimension, we will take steps toward the radical regeneration of humanity from within itself, in the perspective of renewed sustainability. That is why I wanted “integral ecology and spiritual dialogues” to be another provocation for our reflection on the present and future of humanity and Planet Earth.

References

  1. 1. Ghiraldelli P. Pandemia e Pandemônio. São Paulo: CEFA; 2020
  2. 2. Küng H. Projeto de Ética Mundial: uma moral ecumênica em vista da sobrevivência humana. São Paulo: Edições Paulinas; 1993
  3. 3. Küng H. Religiões mundiais e ethos mundial. São Leopoldo: Instituto Humanitas Unisinos; 2007
  4. 4. Boff L. Reflexões de um velho teólogo e pensador. Petrópolis: Vozes; 2018
  5. 5. Boff L. Sustentabilidade: O que é – O que não é. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes; 2012
  6. 6. Boff L. As 4 ecologias. Rio de Janeiro: Mar de Ideias; 2012
  7. 7. Companhia de Jesus, Província dos Jesuítas do Brasil. Promoção da Justiça Socioambiental: Marco de Orientação. São Paulo: Loyola; 2021
  8. 8. CBJP. (2022). Análise de conjuntura: desafios múltiplos e a necessária serenidade para o futuro. Brasília: Comissão Brasileira de Justiça e Paz, Grupo de Análise de Conjuntura da CNBB
  9. 9. Pope Francis. Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis on Care for our Common Home. 2015. Laudato si’ (24 May 2015) | Francis (vatican.va)
  10. 10. Bullard RD, Wright B. Race Place & Environmental Justice after Hurricane Katrina. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2005
  11. 11. Prigogine I, Stengers I. A Nova Aliança: metamorfose da ciência. Brasília: Editora UNB; 1984
  12. 12. Acselrad H, Mello CCA, Bezerra GN. O que é justiça ambiental? Rio de Janeiro: Garamond Universitária; 2009
  13. 13. Nascimento EP, de. Trajetória da sustentabilidade: do ambiental ao social, do social ao econômico. Rev. Estudos Avançados. 2012;26:74
  14. 14. Almeida D d S, Pires T, Totti V. Racismo Ambiental e a distribuição racialmente desigual dos danos ambientais no Brasil. In: Relatório do XXIII Seminário de Iniciação Científica e Tecnológica; Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio. 2015
  15. 15. Gonçalves TM. O Trabalho Interdisciplinar na Educação Ambiental. Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental. São Paulo. 2019;14(3):41-49
  16. 16. Leff E. A Aposta pela Vida: Imaginação sociológica e imaginários sociais nos territórios ambientais do Sul. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes; 2016
  17. 17. Alier JM. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Story of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2003
  18. 18. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2010). Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia dos saberes. In: de Santos, B. S. & Meneses, M. P. (Ed.). Epistemologias do Sul (pp. 31-83). São Paulo: Cortez.
  19. 19. Santos B, de Sousa. O fim do império cognitivo. A afirmação das epistemologias do Sul. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica Editora; 2019
  20. 20. Morin E. Compreender a complexidade. Porto Alegre: Editora Instituto Piaget; 2005
  21. 21. Morin E, Abouessalam S. É hora de mudarmos de via: As lições do coronavírus. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Bertrand Brasil; 2020
  22. 22. Harvey D. Spaces of Hope. 1st ed. Edinburgh University Press; 2000
  23. 23. Cortez AT, Ortigoza SAG. Da produção ao consumo: impactos socioambientais no espaço urbano. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica; 2009
  24. 24. Guattari F. The Three Ecologies. Bloomsbury Academia; 2014
  25. 25. Murad A. Ecosofia na Deep Ecology e a Ecologia Integral da Laudato Si’: convergência nas diferenças. In: Follmann JI, editor. Ecologia Integral: Abordagens [im]pertinentes. Vol. 1. São Leopoldo: Casa Leiria; 2020. pp. 37-58
  26. 26. Naess A. Los movimientos de la ecología superficial y la ecología profunda: un resumen. Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo. 2007;23(1):95-97
  27. 27. Naess A. Une écosophie pour la vie. Introduction à l’ecologie profonde. (Artigos organizados por Hicham-Stéphane Afeissa). Paris: Du Seuil; 2017
  28. 28. Panikkar R. Ecosofia. Para una espiritualidad de la tierra. Madrid: San Pablo; 1994
  29. 29. Tavares SS, Brunelli D. Evangelização em diálogo: Novos cenários a partir do paradigma ecológico. Petrópolis: Instituto Teológico Franciscano/Editora Vozes; 2014
  30. 30. Follmann JI. Ecologia Integral: abordagens [im]pertinentes. Vol. I. São Leopoldo: Casa Leiria; 2020
  31. 31. Follmann JI. Ecologia Integral: abordagens [im]pertinentes. Vol. II. São Leopoldo: Casa Leiria; 2020
  32. 32. Follmann JI. Ecologia Integral: abordagens [im]pertinentes. Vol. III. São Leopoldo: Casa Leiria; 2021
  33. 33. Nicolescu B. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. State University of New York Press; 2002
  34. 34. Pope Francis. Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti of the Holy Father Francis on Fraternity and Social Friendship. 2020. Fratelli tutti (3 October 2020) | Francis (vatican.va)
  35. 35. Pope Francis. Pope Francis Angelus. Saint Peter’s Square. 2020. Available from: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/angelus/2020/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20201004.html
  36. 36. Pope Francis. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis on the Proclamation of the Gospel in the Today’s World. 2013. Available from: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
  37. 37. Gasda ÉE. Doutrina Social: economia, trabalho e política. (Coleção Teologia do Papa Francisco). São Pulo: Edições Paulinas; 2018
  38. 38. Cirne LFR. O Espaço da Coexistência: uma visão interdisciplinar de ética socioambiental. São Paulo: Loyola; 2013
  39. 39. Follmann JI. Caminhos da Justiça Socioambiental e Espiritualidade do Cuidado. In: Aragão G, Vicente M, editors. Desafios dos Fundamentalismos. Recife: Observatório Transdisciplinar das Religiões de Recife, Universidade Católica de Recife; 2020. pp. 113-133

Notes

  • The essay dates from March 2022. The concept of "syndemics" was conceived by Merril Singer (2009), meaning the aggravation of health problems by the combination of several interrelated factors. In Brazil, philosopher Paulo Ghiraldelli [1] uses the concept of "syndemics" to characterize the high political, cultural, and economic impact in the pandemic moment that Covid-19 represented.
  • War of occupation of Ukraine, declared by Russia, at the end of February 2022.
  • José Mujica: "Mujica sobre a crise na Ucrânia e a ‘loucura da guerra’." (23/02/2022). (2819) Mujica sobre a crise na Ucrânia e a "loucura da guerra"—YouTube.
  • Attention to the rule of the great oligarchs and big corporations is becoming ever more common today, both in the East and in the West.
  • The three preceding paragraphs, in the present item, reproduce partially three paragraphs of author’s Preface to the second edition of "Promoção da Justiça Socioambiental - Marco de Orientação," Província dos Jesuítas do Brasil [7].
  • This organization provides a periodic analysis service of the conjuncture for the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil—CNBB. It is a group of experts linked to various research centers and Catholic Universities.
  • CBJP situation analysis, February 21, 2022. https://justicapaz.org See references in https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2014/09/140913_papa_guerra_1k
  • Hybrid Warfare—New Threats, Complexity and "Trust" as the "Antidote." Bilal, Arsalan. Nato Review, November 30, 2021. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/11/30/hybrid-warfare-new-threats-complexity-and-trust-as-the-antidote/index.html.
  • Although its concrete terror remains alive, as shown by examples in dozens of countries around the world, and, at the moment, also in Ukraine, with the violent Russian occupation war, in March 2022. (The writing of this text coincided with the outbreak of the "Ukrainian occupation war," declared by Russia and which began in late February 2022).
  • In this text official documents of Pope Francis will be quoted with their respective abbreviation acronyms: LS = Laudato Si′ (LS, 2015); EG = Evangelii Gaudium (EG, 2013); FT = Fratelli Tutti (FT, 2020). In textual references or quotations, the acronyms and the numbers of the paragraphs referred to or cited, will be used, such as: (LS, 17).
  • With the title Ecologia Integral: Abordagens [im] pertinentes (Integral Ecology: [Not] Relevant approaches), a collection in three volumes was published in 2020 and 2021 (Vol. I and II, 2020; Vo. III, 2021), organized by José Ivo Follmann, containing 27 selected original chapters [30, 31, 32].
  • Certainly, not all readers are followers of the Catholic Church, but I believe that the proposal is consistent with the entire Christian proposal and, above all, the proposal of humanity. In the Social Teaching of the Church, the ecological issue and its relationship with the social issue have been matured since Pope John XXIII, in the Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (1963) and Pope Paul VI, in the Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (1967), passing, posteriorly, by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, until today. The innovative differential of Pope Francis lies in the strong insistence on considering social and environmental challenges in an integrated and interrelated way, proposing reflection from an integral ecology and the cultivation of fraternal dialog, as the necessary path for peace and sustainability. The title of this essay "Integral Ecology and Spiritual Dialogues" is strongly inspired by this.
  • The main content of this item is an adaptation from a collective production, coordinated by the author of this essay, presenting an operative concept of socio-environmental justice [7]. Already published by the author in another article [39].
  • An original question addressed to the humanity of all times, which hides, ashamed of itself.
  • As for Gen. 2, 15, and especially Gen. 1, 26–31, in theological terms, "the human being in creation" is approached in a detailed and profound way by [38], p. 82–89.

Written By

José Ivo Follmann

Submitted: 04 April 2022 Reviewed: 02 May 2022 Published: 20 June 2022